|
|
10 June 1994
Doc. 7103
REPORT
on the enlargement of the Council of Europe
(Rapporteur: Mr REDDEMANN,
Germany, Group of the European People's Party)
Summary
The time has come for the Council of Europe to set limits to its enlargement.
As the boundaries of Europe have not yet been comprehensively defined under international law, the Council of Europe should, in principle, base itself on the generally accepted geographical limits of Europe.
Only states whose territory lies wholly or partly in Europe, and whose culture is closely linked with European culture, should be able to request membership of the organisation.
I. Draft recommendation
1. The Council of Europe is an organisation of sovereign states striving to achieve close co-operation on the basis of democratic constitutions and the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. Membership of the Council of Europe is in principle open only to states whose national territory lies wholly or partly in Europe and whose culture is closely linked with the European culture.
3. The boundaries of Europe have not yet been comprehensively defined under international law. The Council of Europe therefore should, in principle, base itself on the generally accepted geographical limits of Europe.
4. Accordingly, within their internationally recognised borders, all member states of the Council of Europe, on 1 June 1994, are European: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
5. The states whose legislative assemblies enjoy special guest status with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe are also considered as European, as defined in paragraph 3 above. These states, on 1 June 1994, are: Albania, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Latvia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine.
6. The possibility of membership is open to the republics of the former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, Montenegro and Serbia, which currently have no formal status with the Council of Europe because of their responsibility for the crisis and the United Nations sanctions against them.
7. The possibility of membership is also open to the Principality of Andorra.
8. In view of their cultural links with Europe, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia would have the possibility of applying for membership provided they clearly indicate their will to be considered as part of Europe.
9. Countries bordering directly on Council of Europe member states should be able to enjoy privileged relations with the Parliamentary Assembly, if they so wish. This applies in particular to the states on the eastern and southern shores of the Mediterranean.
10. Even after internationally recognised declarations of sovereignty, any non-European parts of member states which break away from the latter should only be able to apply to participate as observers in the Parliamentary Assembly's work.
11. Delegations to the Parliamentary Assembly should comprise a minimum of two and a maximum of eighteen members.
12. The Assembly therefore recommends that the Committee of Ministers define the limits of the enlargement of the Council of Europe taking into account the above-mentioned principles.
II. Explanatory memorandum
by Mr REDDEMANN
1. The Rapporteur considers that the information report on the enlargement of the Council of Europe (Doc. 6629, appended) which was debated by the Assembly in Budapest on 30 June 1992, still provides a valid basis for discussing the limits of the organisation. It is recalled that Appendices I, II and III to this report respectively contain the conclusions of the Bureau of the Assembly, the Committee on Relations with European Non-Member Countries and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on the enlargement of the Council of Europe.
2. Unless one day the meaning of the term "European" were to be extended to the southern and south eastern shores of the Mediterranean (an idea occasionally put forward) the problem of defining the term concerns only the former republics of the Soviet Union. In his report on "the Council of Europe and the new sovereign Republics of Eastern Europe" (paragraph 18 of Doc. 6484), Mr Tarschys divided them into four categories:
i. the three Baltic republics: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
ii. the other European republics: Russia, Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine,
iii. the Caucasian Republics: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia,
iv. the five Asian Republics: Kazakhstan, Kirgizia, Tadzhikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
While the qualification "European" is obvious for categories (i) and (ii), it is less so for category (iii) and it would be difficult to accept for category (iv).
3. The discussions in the committee were not entirely conclusive as to whether the Caucasian states should be considered European. In view of their cultural links with Europe, a majority would admit the possibility of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia becoming members, if and when their internal situation conformed with Council of Europe standards and if they clearly indicate their will to be considered part of the European family. In any case, the Rapporteur considers that no difference must be made between them in this respect.
Reporting committee: Political Affairs Committee.
Budgetary implications for the Assembly: to be assessed.
Reference to committee: standing mandate (see Doc. 6629).
Draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the committee on 7 June 1994.
Members of the committee: Mr Reddemann (Chairman), Mrs Baarveld-Schlaman (Vice-Chairperson), Lord Finsberg (Vice-Chairman), MM Agnelli (Alternate: Ferrari), Alvarez-Cascos, Andreotti (Alternate: Visibelli), Antretter, Baumel, Bernardini, Björn Bjarnason, Bokov, Bratinka, Büchel, Dimas, Espersen, Fogas, Galanos (Alternate: Hadjidemetriou), Gricius (Alternate: Saudargas), Güner, Mrs Haller, Mrs Halonen, MM Hardy, Hellström, Irmer, Iwinski, Kalus, Kaspereit, Kelam, Kelchtermans, Kenneally, König, Mrs Lentz-Cornette, MM van der Linden, Machete, Martins, Masseret, Micewski, Mimaroglu, Mühlemann, Pahor, Panov, Mrs Papandreou (Remplaçant: Vrettos), Psaila Savona, de Puig, Radulescu Botica, Schieder, Seeuws, Severin, Sir Dudley Smith, Spacek, Szent-Ivanyi, Tarschys, Thoresen, Trabacchini.
N.B. The names of those members who took part in the meeting are printed in italics.
Secretaries to the committee: Mr Sorinas, Mr Kleijssen and Mrs Chatzivassiliou
APPENDIX
16 June 1992
Doc. 6629
1403-12/6/92-1-E
INFORMATION REPORT
on the enlargement of the Council of Europe
(Rapporteur: Mr REDDEMANN, Germany, Christian Democrat)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 2
1. Preconditions for membership 2
2. European condition 3
3. Definition of Europe 3
4. Lack of a recognised European border 3
5. Eastern demarcation line 3
6. Potential member states 4
7. The Federation of Russia 4
8. Asian ex-Soviet republics 4
9. Border changes must be peaceful 5
10. Co-operation with non-European states 5
11. Regulations for co-operation 5
12. Special guest/observer status 6
13. Associate member 6
14. Working members of the Parliamentary Assembly 6
15. Co-ordination of the work 6
Appendix I: Conclusions of the Bureau of the Assembly on the
geographical enlargement of the Council of Europe 7
Appendix II: Conclusions of the Committee on Relations with European
Non-Member Countries 24
Appendix III: Conclusions of the Committee on Legal Affairs and
Human Rights 26
Introduction
The changes in East and South-East European countries are setting new tasks for the Council of Europe. They are forcing the Organisation to redefine the boundaries of Europe, to recall the fundamental preconditions for membership, to consider co-operation with non-European states, and to adapt the working methods inter alia of the Parliamentary Assembly to the new situation.
The Bureau of the Assembly and various committees have formulated the bases for carrying out the tasks. They are mainly contained in the reports on the geographical enlargement of the Council of Europe (conclusions of the Bureau) (AS/Bur (43) 93), on access by European non-member states to institutions operating under certain Council of Euorpe conventions relating to human rights (Rapporteur: Mrs Haller) (Doc. 6585), on the Council of Europe and the new sovereign republics of Eastern Europe (Rapporteur: Mr Tarschys) (Doc. 6484) and on the role of the Council of Europe in the "new Europe" (Rapporteur: Mr Soares Costa) (Doc. 6365).
The Parliamentary Assembly must harmonise the various reports with each other in order to adopt proposals for concrete action as soon as possible.
The ensuing report is a contribution to the debate with a view to preparing the requisite work. The conclusions of the Bureau of the Assembly on the geographical enlargement of the Council of Europe are contained in Appendix I. Those of the Committee on Relations with European Non-Member Countries in Appendix II.
1. Preconditions for membership
The Council of Europe is an Organisation of European states. The Statute of the Council of Europe provides that the fundamental prerequisite for accession is that the candidate state be based on the rule of law, guaranteeing human rights and the fundamental freedoms.
Hitherto, the Statute has differentiated between sovereign states (Article 4), which can become full members, and other countries (Article 5) which have not obtained sovereignty.
Since the foundation of the Council of Europe the number of sovereign states in Europe has increased. The number of dependent countries has decreased. Of all states on European territory, only the Principalities of Andorra and Monaco do not enjoy full sovereignty.
The Holy See, which does not have a democratic system because of its special position as the seat of the world Catholic Church, holds observer status with the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers.
The State of Israel, aware of its obligations under the Council of Europe fundamental principles, has observer status with the Parliamentary Assembly. Israel's geographical situation makes the Republic's full membership impossible, however desirable this might be.
2. European condition
In addition to the safeguard on democratic rights, the Council of Europe's Statute requires a member state to be part of the European continent.
However, the founder states did not require the national territory of a member state to be situated exclusively in Europe. For example, the Republic of Turkey was accepted as a full member. The French Republic was already a full member when the present-day Republic of Algeria was constitutionally still part of the French Republic.
The precondition remained that a state which is considered to be only partly on the European continent must be integrated into European culture and see itself as a European state.
3. Definition of Europe
Geographically speaking, Europe cannot be so unambiguously defined as other continents, because the "old continent" gives the impression of being an intricately shaped peninsula appended to Asia.
For this reason Europe as a continent has always been defined in historical and cultural terms, although conceptions of the extent of Europe have differed immensely throughout the centuries.
Theoretical discussion of the boundaries of Europe were of no concern to the Council of Europe's founding fathers, because at the time the potentially controversial borders in the East required no investigation.
The Soviet Government's assertion that the Council of Europe was nothing but an instrument of the Cold War, and the consequent hostile policy adopted by the Soviet Union vis-à-vis the Council rendered an exact reconnaissance of borders superfluous.
4. Lack of a recognised Eastern border
Even now Europe has no internationally binding Eastern boundary. Since Tsarist Russia had overstepped all theoretical borders between Europe and Asia with its annexations of states East of Russia proper, although a distinction was drawn between European and Asian Russia no conclusions were drawn under constitutional or international law, inside or outside Russia.
After the Soviet Union collapsed and was temporarily split up into so-called socialist republics, the Russian Socialist Federal Republic was divided into administrative units but no borders were laid out to form a mandatory line of separation between Europe and Asia.
5. Eastern demarcation line
In the public discussion which followed the slogan "Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals", proclaimed by the former French President Charles de Gaulle, a dividing line between Europe and Asia emerged running from the middle of the Bosporus through the Black Sea to the estuary of the Ural river, via the whole course of the Ural river, and finally along the crests of the Ural mountains to the Northern edge of the Euro-Asian land mass.
This line would not be exact enough if it had to be used to establish a national border. However, it is quite adequate as a dividing line between two continents which is not intended to be binding under national or international law.
Since the member states of the Council of Europe have hitherto refrained from challenging the Ural line, the Council should accept it as being the Eastern demarcation of Europe.
6. Potential member states
The following consequences derive from the stipulation of the Statute that a Council of Europe member state must be a European state:
In addition to the 27 current sovereign member states of the Council of Europe, the following states in the East and South-East of the continent count as European states:
a. in the Baltic: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania;
b. West of the Russian Federation: Belarus and the Ukraine. Moldavia has declared itself sovereign. Some quarters are advocating the country's re-union with Romania.
c. in the Balkans: Romania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia/Montenegro and Albania.
The existence of Macedonia (previously a Yugoslavian republic) is disputed by Greece. Serbia is not prepared to free the proclaimed Republic of Kosovo. The status of Vojvodina remains controversial.
d. in the Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.
7. The Federation of Russia
The Federation of Russia has a special role to play. Its government headquarters and main political centre are indisputably in Europe, even though large tracts of the Republic are undoubtedly on Asian soil.
Russia's geographical situation entitles it to become a member of the Council of Europe. Doubts are currently still justified as to whether the country fulfils the other prerequisites for membership. More detailed examination would be required.
8. Asian ex-Soviet republics
Of the former Soviet republics, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are all indubitably situated outside the borders of Europe as defined in Section 5.
The Western area of Kazakhstan is on European soil. However, despite the large European population groups (mainly Russian) there is no European orientation as described in Section 7 of this report as a precondition for full membership.
9. Border changes must be peaceful
In view of the disputes, and indeed armed conflict, between various states and nationalities in the former Soviet Union and what used to be Yugoslavia, changes to borders and the creation of further states cannot be excluded. No description of the current situation can therefore be viewed as definitively establishing the present-day system of states.
The Council of Europe is guided here by the provisions of the CSCE Final Act which permits modifications to borders but stipulates they must be made without the use of force, and, obviously, not against the will of the populations involved.
For the Council of Europe, the peoples' right of self-determination remains one of the mainstays of the system for maintaining peace in Europe.
10. Co-operation with non-European states
In view of the interest shown by non-European states neighbouring on our continent, we should investigate, as part of the current overall changes, how co-operation could be pursued between these states and the organs of the Council of Europe.
The states in question cannot become full members because the Council's lofty aims preclude it from giving the impression of using co-operation between European peoples to attempt to draw other states back into a European area of influence and curtail their right of self-determination.
The Council of Europe should keep itself within modest limits and lay very narrow boundaries for co-operation with non-European states. Above all, we must prevent the coercive membership of the ex-Soviet Union or belonging to a former European colonial system from becoming the precondition for co-operation.
11. Regulations for co-operation
States which wish to co-operate with the Council of Europe must apply the principles on which the Council bases its own work. They may accede to all Council of Europe conventions which do not necessitate collaboration in one to the Council's organs.
If a co-operating state wishes to enforce the European Convention on Human Rights on its own territory, negotiations must be conducted to determine how it aims to comply with the decisions of the European Commission of Human Rights and the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights - and how its collaboration on these bodies is to be organised.
In order to enable co-operating states to work in the Council of Europe's committees, a co-operation committee must be set up of representatives of the co-operating states, the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly. The committee would then decide on the themes for co-operation.
The Parliamentary Assembly shall debate the agreed themes during at least one session every year. During preparation of the debate, the representatives of the co-operating states may submit proposals to the Parliamentary Assembly committees. If the committees and the representatives of the co-operating states were unable to secure a joint decision, the divergent opinions must be set forth in the relevant committee report.
Delegations of the co-operating states may take part in the Parliamentary Assembly debates on the themes formulated by the co-operating committee, and have full entitlement to take the floor. In such cases, Assembly resolutions may only be adopted if a majority of the representatives of the co-operating states are in favour.
12. Special guest/observer status
Special guest status for the parliaments of European non-member states would be cancelled as soon as all states currently or prospectively holding such status would have become full members or, for statutory reasons, would be disqualified from becoming full members.
Observer status would remain restricted to the two states currently holding it - Israel's observer status with the Assembly under Rule 55 of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure and the observer status of the Holy See with the Council of Europe.
If these statuses were cancelled, the modalities of co-operation between the Council of Europe and the Holy See would have to be re-examined, as would the rights currently enjoyed by Israel. However, the latter could apply for the status of co-operating state.
13. Associate member
The possibility of becoming an associate member, which has not been availed of since 1955, could be cancelled, in the absence of applicants.
Transferring the concept of "associate member" to a state co-operating with the Council of Europe could lead to misunderstandings because "associates" have hitherto been non-sovereign states. "Second-class membership" would also hamper the desired co-operation with the United States and Canada.
14. Working methods of the Parliamentary Assembly
The extension of the Council of Europe to new member states, and the possible extension of Parliamentary Assembly debates to delegations from co-operating states, will force the Parliamentary Assembly to change its working methods.
The Assembly must either increase the number of its sittings or, when establishing the order of business, reduce the number of items for debate.
Debates in which the majority of registered speakers are given only three minutes or have no opportunity at all to speak do not do justice to the work of the Parliamentary Assembly.
15. Co-ordination of the work
Since the points of view expressed in various committees are still divergent, the Bureau should set up a special committee made up of members of the ad hoc Committee for the Revision of the Statute, the Political Affairs Committee, the Committee on Relations with European Non-Member Countries, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Committee on Rules of Procedure. The special committee would be responsible for co-ordinating the various fields of work and formulating a common position thereupon.
A P P E N D I X I
THE GEOGRAPHICAL ENLARGEMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
POLICY OPTIONS AND CONSEQUENCES
Conclusions of the Bureau of the Assembly
as approved on 22 April 19921
Table of Contents
Introduction
I. Conditions of membership
1. Relevant articles of the Statute
2. The concept of "European"
II. Potential new members
1. Short-term
a. Bulgaria
b. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
2. Medium-term
a. Romania
b. Albania
c. Former republics of Yugoslavia
i. Slovenia
ii. Croatia
iii. Macedonia
iv. Others
d. Commonwealth of Independent States
i. Russia
ii. Other European ex-Soviet republics
iii. Caucasian republics
iv. Former Soviet republics geographically
situated in Asia
III. Consequences of enlargement
1. A change in the nature of the Organisation
2. The functioning of the organs of the Organisation
a. Procedure
b. Space
c. Staff
d. The language question
e. Share of new member countries in leading posts
in the Organisation
3. Financial obligations
Appendix A: Revised draft for a new wording of Article 5 of the Statute
Appendix B: List of potential full or associate members of the Council of Europe
Introduction
At their meetings on 10 and 11 March 1992, respectively, the ad hoc Committee on Relations with Eastern Europe and the Bureau held a first exchange of views on a paper presented by the Clerk of the Assembly and first distributed on 18 February 1992. The Bureau then asked the Clerk to prepare a revised version for the committee's and the Bureau's meetings on 22 April 19922.
In accordance with the Bureau's instructions, the paper was to provide a basis for discussion on the policy or "strategy" to be adopted by the Assembly regarding the admission of new members, special guest status and other forms of co-operation with the Council of Europe.
In this connection, it should be underlined that an important contribution to this debate had already been made by Mr Tarschys with his "report on the Council of Europe and the new sovereign Republics of Eastern Europe" (Doc. 6484 of 13 September 1991), though written at a time when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was still formally in existence. The work of the Bureau's ad hoc Committee on the Revision of the Statute is also relevant, as the proposed new wordings of Articles 3 and 4 and, in particular, that of Article 5 (see Appendix A) have a direct bearing on the issue.
Having considered the Clerk's paper at its meetings of 11 March and 22 April 1992 and taken account of the advice given by the ad hoc Committee on Relations with Eastern Europe, the Bureau reached the conclusions reflected below. It decided that they should be communicated to:
- the Political Affairs Committee which is to prepare a report for debate at the Budapest part-session on 30 June 1992;
- the Committee on Relations with European Non-Member Countries and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights which are requested to forward their contributions of the Political Affairs Committee before the latter's meeting on 4 June 1992 when the aforementioned report is to be adopted in committee, so as to allow its distribution in good time before the Budapest plenary (see Rule 28, 2).
The present paper is sub-divided in three parts: Part I deals with the conditions of membership and Part II, with potential new members. Part III is concerned with the consequences of enlargement on the nature and functioning of the Organisation.
I. CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP
1. Relevant articles of the Statute
It emerges from Articles 3 and 4 of the Statute in its present wording that, in order to become a member of the Council of Europe, a state must be European, recognise the rule of law and respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. It must also "collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council ...". This includes meeting its financial obligations (see Article 9). The condition that a member must be a democracy is implicit in the preamble (and in Chapter V on the Parliamentary Assembly). The revised version that will be proposed by the Bureau's ad hoc Committee on the Revision of the Statute would reinforce Articles 3 and 4, inter alia by inserting the conditions that the state in question must be a pluralist parliamentary democracy and that it accedes to the European Convention on Human Rights. (Both conditions already correspond to the Assembly's practice when formulating its opinions on applications for membership.)
There is unanimity in the Assembly, as in the Committee of Ministers, that the Organisation's principles with regard to pluralist parliamentary democracy, rule of law and human rights must be firmly upheld where membership is in question. The Assembly has been more flexible as far as special guest status is concerned (see Rule 55.a paragraph 1).
2. The concept of "European"
On the other hand, the Organisation (the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers) need a clear policy as to what is "European". This was also underlined, on both sides, during the meeting on 21 April between the ad hoc Committee on the Revision of the Statute and a delegation of the Ministers' Deputies.
Unless one day the meaning of the term were to be extended to the southern and south eastern shores of the Mediterranean (an idea occasionally put forward) this problem concerns only the former republics of the Soviet Union. Mr Tarschys (paragraph 18 of Doc. 6484) had divided them into four categories:
i. the three Baltic republics: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
ii. the other European republics: Russia, Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine,
iii. the Caucasian Republics: Armenia, Azerbaidjan, Georgia,
iv. the five Asian Republics: Kazakhstan, Kirgizia, Tadzhikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
While the qualification "European" is obvious for categories (i) and (ii), it is less so for category (iii) and it would be difficult to accept for category (iv).
It is true that the CSCE has accepted all ex-Soviet republics as participating states, following their acceptance of CSCE commitments and responsibilities. However, the Council of Europe is obviously not bound to follow this example: the CSCE has never been purely European and it has now become an American-European-Asian framework of co-operation with 51 members3. It has also been argued, more particularly with regard to special guest status (which has come to be regarded as a preliminary stage to full membership), that one should not refuse to the part what had been granted to the whole. But there is a difference between granting special guest status or membership to a state which has both a predominantly European population as well as a substantial non-European population and to former parts of that state which are clearly non-European. When, for example, Algeria ceased to be a Department of the French Republic, it was not offered (nor asked for) membership of the Council of Europe.
The discussions in the Bureau were not entirely conclusive as to whether the Caucasian states should be considered European. In view of their cultural links with Europe, a majority would admit the possibility of Armenia, Azerbaidjan and Georgia becoming members, if and when their internal situation conformed with Council of Europe standards and if there was a clear will, on their part, to be considered part of the European family. In any case, the Bureau held that, no difference must be made between them in this respect, (see also page 9 below).
There was unanimity that the Asian ex-Soviet republics were not eligible for full Council of Europe membership. However, it was felt that there were, nevertheless, strong political and security arguments for drawing them closer to the Council of Europe. The new type of associate membership (see Appendix A), if it were agreed upon, and other forms of co-operation as initiated already (for example, training schemes under the Demosthenes Programme, legal counselling, accession to Council of European conventions) would be appropriate instruments to this end - always provided that there was a reciprocal desire of co-operation (see also page 10 below)
II. POTENTIAL NEW MEMBERS
1. Short-term
a. Bulgaria
It is taken for granted that the Assembly's positive opinion will be adopted on 5 May, and that Bulgaria will be admitted to the Council of Europe on the occasion of the Committee of Ministers' session on 7 May.
b. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
The Bureau noted that the three countries who hold special guest status in the Assembly are expected to accede to the European Cultural Convention on 7 May.
Concerning full membership, the reports of the three teams of eminent lawyers (members of the Court and Commission of Humand Rights) had suggested that there were still problems regarding the conformity of the internal legal order of these countries with Council of Europe standards, apart from the fact that all of them still needed to organise free general elections.
At its meeting on 22 April, the Bureau was informed that the rapporteurs of the committees concerned (Political Affairs, Non-Member Countries, Legal Affairs) had visited Estonia from 12-15 April. In view of the progress made in meeting Council of Europe standards and the prospect of general elections in June 1992, they did not exclude the possibility that the Assembly might adopt a positive opinion at the October 1992 part-session.
No report was yet available from the rapporteurs who visited Latvia from 21-24 April, whereas no date has yet been fixed for the visit of the rapporteurs of the three committees to Lithuania.
The Bureau unanimously considered that accession by these countries depended on:
- the fulfilment of all conditions under the Statute and the ECHR;
- the respect of minorities' rights, and
- the holding of free elections.
At the same time, the Bureau confirmed its view that the three countries should not be considered as a bloc and that one may well meet the conditions of membership earlier than others.
2. Medium-term
a. Romania
The Assembly has been seized by the Committee of Ministers of Romania's application for membership. However, there are still doubts whether the internal situation in Romania is such as to make it ready for full membership. Under the electoral law adopted in 1990, general elections must take place within one year from the adoption of the new Constitution (8 December 1991). There are no clear indications as to the date envisaged.
The three committees concerned have appointed their rapporteurs for Romania, namely: Mr Koenig (Political Affairs Committee); Mr Masseret (Committee on Relations with European Non-Member Countries); and Mr Jansson (Legal Affairs Committee). No date for a visit to Romania has yet been fixed. In any case, it would be after the elections.
In the meantime, the Bureau decided that - as in the case of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - the conformity of Romania's internal legal order with basic Council of Europe standards should be examined by members of the Court and Commission of Human Rights. Obviously, this would depend on the willingness of the Romanian authorities to furnish the required documentation and to receive the eminent lawyers in Romania. The Bureau specified that the same method should henceforth apply to all new applicant countries. Thus, there would be no discrimination as between candidates for membership. In any case, the Bureau considered that it would not be possible to complete the procedure for Romania's admission to the Council of Europe before 1993.
The Bureau also noted that the case of Romania should be seen in connection with that of Moldova. Both states have signed the Helsinki Final Act and, thus, are committed to respecting existing frontiers - which does not exclude peaceful change of frontiers by agreement. Both have declared unambiguously that Moldova is part of Romania. But this view may well require testing by means of referenda in the two states, monitored on the spot by delegations from the Assembly.
If Romania and Moldova were to unite before Romania's admission to the Council of Europe, the Assembly would have to scrutinise the situation in Moldova as carefully as in Romania, bearing also in mind that the Russian and Gagauzi minorities in Moldova are opposed to becoming part of Romania and that an "independent" Republic of Transnistria has just been proclaimed in the Russian-populated part of Moldova. If fusion took place after Romania's admission, the situation would be still more complicated, unless, in the meantime, Moldova had been admitted on her own merits.
b. Albania
On 22 April, the Bureau heard an oral report by Sir John Stokes, leader of the Assembly's observer delegation for the 22 March elections (see also statement by Sir John Stokes dated 24 March and the report appended to the Activity Report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee, Doc. 6603). While underlining that Albania was still facing enormous problems and that the outcome of the elections did not yet make the country ready for accession to the Council of Europe, the Bureau considered that if and when a formal application for membership was received and forwarded by the Committee of Ministers to the Assembly, normal procedure (including the examination of Albania's internal legal order by members of the Court and Commission) should be followed.
c. Former republics of Yugoslavia
i. Slovenia, received special guest status on 3 February 1992. It then applied for full membership. The application was forwarded by the Committee of Ministers to the Assembly on 26 March. At first sight, this country may well meet the basic conditions of membership concerning human rights, the rule of law and pluralist parliamentary democracy.
On 22 April, the Bureau referred the Committee of Ministers' request for an opinion to the three committees concerned.
ii. Croatia applied for special guest status. The two competent committees have given a positive opinion. The Bureau intends to take a decision on 4 May 1992.
iii. Macedonia
This newly independent republic has also applied for special guest status and the competent committees have appointed rapporteurs. A delegation of the Macedonian parliament has been invited for an exchange of views with the Committee on Relations with European Non-Member Countries on 5 May 1992.
iv. Others
No approach has been made yet by Bosnia-Herzegovina. A re-establishment of relations with the "new" Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) is not, at this stage, a topical issue. In this connection, the Bureau was informed that the Political Affairs Committee had invited delegations from Kosovo and Vojvodina for an exchange of views during the May part-session.
d. Commonwealth of Independent States4
i. Russia has taken up former oral declarations of Soviet representatives according to which membership in the Council of Europe was one of their government's policy objectives. No formal application has yet been lodged, but there are indications that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Mr Kozyrev will do so on 7 May when attending the Committee of Ministers. He will also have an exchange of views with the Political Affairs Committee.
During his recent visit to Paris (5 to 7 February 1992) President Yeltsin asked for the French Government's support for Russia's entry into the Council of Europe and this received a positive reaction. It may be open to question, however, whether the "democratic revolution" in Russia, as in other ex-Soviet republics, has already gone deep enough to be compatible with Council of Europe standards.
Furthermore, the Bureau noted that there are signs of disintegration within the Russian Federation. Thus, the Chechens and the Tatars have recently declared their independence, whatever this may mean in practice. A new Treaty of Federation was signed on 31 March. The Chechen and Tatars refused to sign.
While accession to the Council of Europe is not yet around the corner, the Bureau strongly supports the activities carried out under the intergovernmental Demosthenes Programme. In addition, it considers co-operation at the parliamentary level should be stepped up for example, training of parliament officials and parliamentarians through seminars or traineeships in Strasbourg. Of course, such programmes could also be carried out by national parliaments of Council of Europe member countries.
ii. Other European ex-Soviet republics represented at the hearings during the February 1992 part-session, namely Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova (see above) expressed interest in becoming members of the Organisation. Whatever the internal situation in these countries, as no formal applications have been lodged so far, membership could not be envisaged before 1993. In the meantime, all of them have applied for special guest status. On 7 February, the Bureau had decided to "freeze" these and other applications until a discussion on general policy regarding geographical enlargement had taken place. On 22 April the Bureau decided that the procedure can go ahead5.
The Bureau supports the same interim measures of co-operation as in the case of Russia.
iii. The Caucasian republics have already been mentioned in Part I in connection with the "frontiers of Europe". It was noted that they are not European in the strict geographical sense of the word, while the opinion is widely shared that they are culturally close to Europe. (It was also observed, however, that cultural affinities exist with a number of states situated in other continents and that this has never been considered a sufficient criterion for Council of Europe membership).
Armenia and Azerbaidjan are candidates for special guest status. Georgia had earlier expressed interest in the Council of Europe, without making a formal application. Obviously, the situation in Georgia (as, in fact, in the two other republics) is too uncertain at the moment to make any forecasts.
Furthermore, it was noted that the picture may be complicated in the future. The North Caucasus consists of a number of Autonomous Republics (AR) within the Russian Federation. According to the 1989 census, the total population numbers more than four million people: 102 000 Abkhazians; 394 000 Kabardins; 245 000 Karachai and Balqar; 124 000 Circassians (Adygei); 597 000 Ossetians; 1,2 million Chechen and Ingush and two million Daghestanis. The majority are Sunni Muslims, although there are both Muslim and Christian Ossetians.
The Bureau concluded that the question of the form of the Council's future relations with the three countries (potential full membership or reformed associate membership) should remain open for the time being. In principle, special guest status was considered a possibility (although this was seen as a relationship leading normally to full membership in due course). However, the Bureau decided that the procedure concerning the application lodged by Armenia and Azerbaidjan would not be pursued any further, until replies had been received to the President's letter of 6 February 1992 asking for confirmation that they accept Council of Europe binding mediation on the issue of Nagarno-Karabakh.
The Bureau also expressed concern about reports on atrocities perpetrated in Georgia.
iv. Former Soviet Republics geographically situated in Asia.
The question of their relations with the Council of Europe has also been touched upon already in Part I in connection with the definition of the term "European". None of the republics concerned (Kazakhstan, Kirgizia, Tadzhikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) has so far made a formal approach to the Council of Europe. But the Bureau noted that four of them (all except Tadzhikistan) have cultural and linguistic ties with Turkey, the development of which could constitute an important factor of stability in the region6.
The Bureau agreed that full membership cannot be considered (which should logically also exclude special guest status, if this is seen as an "antechamber" for full membership) but that the new type of associate membership (Appendix A) proposed by the ad hoc Committee on the Revision of the Statute might constitute an appropriate link with the Council of Europe7. Of course, this presupposed a willingness to enter into such a relationship on the other side. The Council of Europe must guard itself against any possible reproach of neo-colonialism.
With this proviso, the Bureau would also encourage accession to Council of Europe conventions (bearing in mind that associate membership would also allow accession to "closed" conventions, such as the ECHR. The Committee of Ministers could offer technical assistance under the Demosthenes Programme.
III. CONSEQUENCES OF ENLARGEMENT
The expected enlargement of the Organisation will have consequences for the political nature of the Council of Europe, the functioning of its organs, its tasks, the needs for staff, meeting rooms and offices. It will also require more credits for technical assistance and advice in "democracy building" to candidates and new member countries. No doubt financial assistance allowing certain delegations to participate in Assembly meetings, will also be needed for a certain period.
1. A change in the nature of the Organisation
The Bureau considered that the expected geographical expansion of the Organisation will entail a profound change in its internal political balance: what was a Western Organisation will in future be strongly influenced by the Eastern part of Europe. There was agreement that this is a desirable development, as it will lead to a pan-European order (be it called confederation or by any other name) and because it will enrich Western Europe with a cultural input from Central and Eastern Europe, and vice versa.
2. The functioning of the organs of the Organisation
The increase from a membership of 23 in 1989 to perhaps 40 or more in some years' time is bound to have serious impacts on the internal functioning of the Organisation.
At present, the Assembly has 204 titular members and the same number of substitutes, adding up to 408. A large number of the substitutes participate regularly in plenary and committee meetings, even if the titular member is also present. To this have to be added the special guest and observer delegations, although special guests have no substitutes. The number of parliamentarians in special guest delegations (Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Russia, Slovenia) adds up to 50.
If all the states listed in Appendix B under 1-3 were to join the Council of Europe in due course, the number of countries would be 44 and the number of titular members 314; assuming that the ceiling would remain fixed at 18 for the "big" member states. This will entail a number of specific problems, briefly mentioned hereafter.
a. Procedure
Both in the Committee of Ministers (and its subordinate expert committees) and in the Assembly voting rules and other procedural provisions will have to be reconsidered.
i. For the Assembly, a more detailed study will have to be undertaken to examine whether the existing rules of procedure are adapted to a membership which (in terms of countries and in terms of representatives in the Assembly) will have doubled in some years' time.
ii. The rules for speaking time and the Speakers' list (again on the Bureau's agenda for 11 March) may need to be reviewed once more.
iii. Another question concerns the composition of the Bureau. Can one go on enlarging Bureau membership with consequences on the manageability of this body8?
iv. The composition of the other committees, presently laid down in Rule 43, should also be looked at again. Already some committees are now so large that, with the presence of special guests and observers, they have become difficult to manage.
The Bureau felt that none of the procedural issues under (i)-(iv) constituted a major problem. However they should be looked into by the Rules of Procedure Committee, after the Assembly's debate at the June 1992 part-session in Budapest.
b. Space
i. The Assembly Chamber, adapted to the size of the European Parliament, should be sufficient for a long time to come. If necessary, some categories of persons presently seated in the hemicycle may have to sit elsewhere in the future.
ii. Some meeting rooms, even in the Palais de l'Europe, are no longer sufficient to accommodate the larger committees. However, given the size of these rooms, it should be possible to add chairs and desks, if necessary, and to adapt the technical equipment.
iii. Problems may nonetheless arise for the meetings of the political groups. The bigger ones find it difficult already now to accommodate all their members in the meeting rooms available.
iv. An immediate concern is office space for the Assembly's staff and for existing and new parliamentary delegations.
v. Concerning the Paris office, the Bureau reiterates its request for an urgent study of alternative solutions to be undertaken by the Council of Europe Secretariat, possibly in co-operation with the Western European Union.
c. Staff
If the Office of the Clerk is to give the same service to the Assembly as before (in fact it should be in a position to give better service), it is obvious that it cannot do so, with a greatly increased membership, unless there is a corresponding increase in staff. Apart from the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk, and four Heads of Division, the grade A staff of the Office consists only of committee secretaries. This includes the Head of the President's Private Office who is at the same time the Secretary of the Bureau. During the past few years additional tasks have been put on committee secretaries, such as an increasing number of time-consuming missions to accompany rapporteurs preparing Opinions on applications for membership and delegations observing general elections. This often is responsible for delays in the production of committee documents.
The Bureau asked the Secretary General and the Committee on the Budget and the Intergovernmental Work Programme to give this matter further consideration.
d. The language question
At the moment, in addition to the two official languages, German and Italian are "working languages" in the Assembly and its committees (Rule 17). This means that interpretation (not translation of documents) is provided under the budget. Interpretation in any other language is paid by the delegation concerned.
The Bureau having been informed that a motion for a recommendation aiming at giving German the status of an official language, decided not to pursue the matter further at this stage.
e. Share of new member countries in leading posts in the Organisation
The Bureau agrees that the Organisation's new role and geographical extension should, in due course, be reflected in the distribution of leading posts of the Organisation.
3. Financial obligations
Reference to this has been made already (Conditions of membership). Article 9 of the Statute provides the following:
"The Committee of Ministers may suspend the right of representation on the committee and on the Consultative Assembly of a member which has failed to fulfil its financial obligation
during such period as the obligation remains unfulfilled."
Indeed, an enlarged organisation, in order to function properly, will require a correspondingly increased budget. Furthermore, membership can only be meaningful if member states/parliaments are regularly represented in the Organisation's organs. It appears that some potential new members, holding special guest status for the time being, may not be in a position, for lack of foreign exchange, to meet their obligations.
While the Bureau confirmed its position that the participation of special guest delegations could be subsidised for a transitional period, the principle of full members contributing to the Council of Europe's budget in accordance with existing rules should be maintained.
A P P E N D I X A
AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR THE REVISION OF THE STATUTE
Revised draft for a new wording of Article 5 of the Statute
a. A state which is deemed able and willing to fulfil the provisions of Article 3 may be invited by the Committee of Ministers, subject to the concurring opinion of the Assembly, to become an associate member of the Council of Europe. Any state so invited shall become an associate member on the deposit on its behalf with the Secretary General of the instrument accepting the present Statute. An associate member shall be represented in the Parliamentary Assembly, without the right to vote. It may be invited by the Committee of Ministers to participate in meetings, without the right to vote.
The expression "member" in the Statute includes an associate member, except when otherwise stated.
Explanatory observations:
1. The present wording of Article 5 refers to a "European country" - for historical reasons which would appear to be no longer valid. This implied, in the past, that entities not fully sovereign could become associate members. It is therefore suggested that, henceforth, associate membership should be open to states only, including non-European states. Consideration had been given to offering associate membership to the United States and Canada. However, this may not correspond to the policy of these countries. On the other hand, the Organisation may wish, in due course, to establish some form of co-operation with (inter alia) some of the Asian ex-Soviet republics. For this purpose, associate membership might be an appropriate formula.
2. The new associate membership would differ from the old one in that it does not provide for full membership rights in the Assembly. In fact, in the Assembly, associate members would benefit from the same rights as special guests and parliamentary observers, whose status, it should be remembered, is not anchored in the Statute, but based on the Assembly's Rules of Procedure (Rules 55 and 55a). The essential qualitative difference between associate membership and special guest status would reside in the fact that the latter would normally lead to full membership, at a later stage, whereas associate membership would, in principle, be a definitive status. This could be spelt out in a footnote in the Statute.
3. The present wording of Article 5 does not provide for representation of associate members in the Committee of Ministers. However, the Sarre and the Federal Republic of Germany, the only "countries" to benefit from Article 5 in its present wording, were, in fact, invited by the Committee of Ministers to participate in its meetings. The new wording would put this practice on a statutory basis, without being obligatory for the Committee of Ministers.
4. Associate members (in the present and the proposed new version of Article 5) have more rights but also more duties than special guests and parliamentary observers. They must accept the Statute and contribute to the budget. Article 38b, second sentence, reads as follows: "The contributions of an associate member shall be determined by the Committee [of Ministers]."
5. It would be useful to retain the definition of the term "member" in the present wording of Article 5, as it would enable associate members to adhere to Council of Europe conventions open to members only.
b. A state, an intergovernmental organisation or a group of states interested in the activities of the Organisation may be granted observer status by the Committee of Ministers, subject to the concurring opinion of the Assembly. Observers are not represented in the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. They may be represented on intergovernmental expert committees, in accordance with the relevant procedures.
The Committee of Ministers will adopt rules concerning the rights and duties of observers.
Explanatory observations:
1. At the moment, there is only one observer mission accredited to the Organisation, namely that of the Holy See. However, the case of the Holy See is considered sui generis and observer status has never been legally defined. De facto, a number of consulates of non-member states do observe the activities of the Council of Europe. It would be in the interest of the Organisation to give a legal basis to the observer status in the Statute, as it could encourage non member states and international organisations to follow its activities more closely.
2. Such a statutory observer status must not be confused with the aforementioned parliamentary observer status under Rule 55 of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure. In due course, if the new wording of Article 5 comes into force, both the parliamentary observer status and the special guest status may become superfluous. The latter being considered a preliminary stage for full membership, it would have no "raison d'être" if no eligible states are left. The only state whose parliament now enjoys parliamentary observer status (Israel) would then be eligible for associate membership.
3. While observers in the meaning of the proposed new Article 5 (b) of the Statute would have no right to be represented in the Assembly, it is understood that the Bureau, in accordance with Rule 55 (3), may "by a three-quarters majority, invite representatives of parliaments of other member states to attend and take part in a debate in the Assembly".
c. The Secretary General acting on behalf of the Committee of Ministers and subject to the concurring opinion of the Assembly may conclude co-ordination and co-operation agreements with other international organisations as well as agreements with non-member states wishing to participate in specific sectors of the organisation's activities.
Explanatory observations:
A similar proposal has been made in the Committee of Ministers' working party. The practice of co-ordination and co-operation agreements with other international organisations has been in existence for a long time, but, although the Assembly was consulted in certain cases, the Secretary General or the Committee of Ministers are not obliged to seek the approval of the Assembly. Agreements with non member states would be a useful instrument, inter alia, to develop the relations of the Council of Europe with the United States, as it would give the latter the possibility to participate in specific activities on a basis of equality.
APPENDIX B
LIST OF POTENTIAL FULL OR ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
1. States which have applied for membership or are expected to apply in the near future*
Country Timetable for adoption Population Seats (approx)
of Assembly opinion
+ Bulgaria probably May 1992 9 000 000 6
+ Estonia possibly October 1992, 1 500 000 3
otherwise 1993
+ Latvia " 2 648 000 3
+ Lithuania " 3 690 000 4
+ Romania " 1993 23 000 000 10
(no. of special guest delegations seats)
+ Slovenia " 1993 1 940 000 3
Albania (application expected) 3 300 000 4
2. Former Yugoslav republics likely to apply for membership
Bosnia-Hercegovina 4 440 000 5
Croatia** 4 680 000 5
Macedonia** 2 090 000 3
Possibly: Yugoslavia (Montenegro
and Serbia - including
Kosovo and 10 430 000 7
Vojvodina)
+ Application communicated to the Assembly for opinion.
* The parliaments of all these states have been granted special guest status.
** Application for special guest status under examination.
3. Former Soviet republics likely to apply for membership
a. European republics
Belarus** 10 000 000 7
Moldova** 4 190 000 5
Russia* 145 300 000 18
Ukraine** 51 210 000 12
(population roughly equivalent to that of Turkey)
b. Caucasian republics
Armenia** 3 362 000 4
Azerbaidjan** 6 810 000 6
Georgia 5 300 000 5
4. Former Soviet Republics situated in Asia
Kazakhstan 16 000 000
Kirgizia 4 140 000
Tadzhikistan 5 000 000
Turkmenistan 3 400 000
Uzbekistan 19 000 000
N.B.: Andorra and Monaco (the latter participating in the CSCE) may also wish, at some later stage, to join the Council of Europe.
* Holds special guest status
** Application for special guest status under examination
A P P E N D I X II
Enlargement of the Council of Europe
Conclusions of the Committee on Relations
with European Non-Member Countries
unanimously approved on 20 May 1992 in Minsk
(Spokesman: Mr ATKINSON)
At its meeting in Minsk on 19-21 May 1992, the Committee on Relations with European Non-Member Countries devoted, upon the Bureau's request, a thorough discussion on the geographical enlargement of the Council of Europe (see doc. AS/Bur (43) 93).
Its unanimous conclusions were as follows.
1. European countries
The four categories of ex-USSR republics mentioned in Mr Tarschys' report of August 1991 (Doc. 6484) were very useful, but new developments appeared since, so that:
a. Categories I (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and II (Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine) can be merged as European states.
b. The Caucasian states (Armenia, Azerbaïjan and Georgia) and the ex-USSR "Asian" states should be considered on the basis of their requests for co-operation with the Council of Europe and their own merits (it should be noted that Kazakhstan has a relative majority of Russian-speaking population).
2. Associate membership
The committee considered that the creation of a new status is not appropriate, all the more so since it would deprive the Assembly from any decision-making9, which it so far carried out in a two-step process:
a. special guest status with the Assembly
b. opinion on the accession to the Council of Europe. It points out that five criteria have now been identified:
- pluralistic democracy
- rule of law
- respect for human rights (commitment by the applicant country to become a party to the European Convention on Human Rights)
- examination of the human rights legislation of the applicant country by a judge of the Court and a member of the European Commission of Human Rights.
- holding of free and democratic general elections monitored by an Assembly delegation;
As far as special guest status is concerned, the committee considered that granting it solely to Russia and not, inter alia, to the other "key-stone" states of the CIS. (Belarus and Ukraine) was erroneous and should be reconsidered (this was confirmed by the Russian delegation at the meeting).
3. Consequences of enlargement
Finally, the committee believes that most aspects mentioned in Chapter III of doc. AS/Bur (43) 93 are a matter for the Committee on Rules of Procedure. It nevertheless suggests that the number of representatives of any national delegation on any committee should not be more than two.
*
* *
Reporting committee: Political Affairs Committee.
Reference to committee: Standing mandate.
Information report: Approved by the Committee on 4 June 1992.
A P P E N D I X III
Conclusions of the Committee on Legal Affairs
and Human Rights
approved on 15 June 1992
(Spokesperson: Mrs HALLER, Switzerland, Socialist)
1. European countries
The Legal Affairs Committee is of the opinion that the geographical boundaries of Europe cannot be clearly defined. Three criteria which have been used in the past are no longer adequate:
- the historical criterion is no longer admissible today, above all because it might be perceived as incipient neo-colonialism;
- the criterion of shared religious and philosophical values is no longer admissible, especially as this would ignore the development of multicultural societies in Europe;
- the purely geographical criterion cannot be applied either, if only because certain Council of Europe member states (Turkey) and other possible future member states (Russia) obviously extend beyond the traditional geographical boundaries of Europe.
The frontiers of Europe might change in the future: they could either be extended or else they might become narrower. This would not necessarily be the result of violent disputes but rather of cultural development. At all events, it is a factor which the Council of Europe should be in a position to take into account.
The Europe of the CSCE is different from the Europe of the Council of Europe. This is a perfectly acceptable fact. The Europe of the Council of Europe can be said to include those regions where its fundamental ideals - pluralistic democracy, human rights and the rule of law - have been adopted. If these principles can be further extended beyond the present limits of Europe, this should be regarded as a very positive and desirable development.
2. Co-operation with non-European states
It is an undisputed fact that there will be a number of states which, although patently not "European", would nevertheless have an interest in becoming associated with certain political and cultural elements of Europe.
The Legal Affairs Committee disapproves of the idea of creating a new "associate member" status in the form in which it has been proposed in connection with revision of the Statute. The very expression "member" could be highly confusing and might well give the impression that the Council of Europe is seeking to extend its sphere of influence beyond the traditional limits of Europe.
It would be preferable to use the term "co-operation" with states which obviously cannot acquire full membership, but which would nevertheless wish to associate themselves with the Council of Europe and adopt its principles in certain specific fields.
How such co-operation should be organised - and in particular which Council of Europe conventions could be signed by the states concerned - is a matter which requires careful clarification.
In accordance with its sphere of competence, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights would add the following considerations relating more specifically to the field of human rights.
3. Co-operation in the field of human rights
In its report on access by European non-member states to institutions operating under certain Council of Europe conventions relating to human rights (Doc. 6585), the Legal Affairs Committee proposed a way in which the human rights ideal could be extended to states outside the membership of the Council of Europe. This report was discussed on 5 May 1992 in the Parliamentary Assembly and led to the adoption of Recommendation 1183 (1992).
In the said recommendation adopted on 5 May 1992, the Parliamentary Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers enable European states which are not members of the Council of Europe to request opinions from the European Court of Human Rights, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the Committee of Independent Experts of the European Social Charter.
In the same report, the Legal Affairs Committee advised against providing an opportunity for non-member states of the Council of Europe to sign the European Convention on Human Rights. There were two main reasons for this: the signature of this instrument would lead to a situation in which judges and commission members from non-member states would have to be allocated seats in the Court and Commission of Human Rights and accordingly would be able to rule on whether there had been human rights violations in Council of Europe member states. Secondly and more important, the Council of Europe would be denied the opportunity of applying the ultimate sanction against a signatory state of the European Convention on Human Rights in the event of violations of the Convention, namely exclusion of the relevant state from the Council of Europe. A non-member state can hardly be excluded from the membership of the Council of Europe10.
The idea put forward in Recommendation 1183 (1992) is perfectly amenable to further development. If after thorough discussion the idea were adopted that non-member states might for example comply with the caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights, then it is perfectly conceivable that this could be chosen as the next step to undertake.
Briefly, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights considers that, before any innovations are adopted especially in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights, all the pros and cons should be carefully weighed up. Special care should be taken to avoid innovations which might weaken the supervisory machinery of the European Convention.
4. Follow-up action
Since it is apparently intended to hold a very thorough debate in Budapest without any recommendations being adopted in this connection, the Legal Affairs Committee has decided against proposing any alterations or additions to the text proposed by the Political Affairs Committee.
1 1 This document does not take into account developments since this date.
2 2 See AS/Ad-hoc-Bur-EE (43) 5 rev. of 30 March 1992.
3 3 That is to say, 25 CSCE states are not, for the time being, members of the Council of Europe:
- All 15 ex-Soviet republics (although Russia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have special guest status);
- Bulgaria, Romania and Albania (all enjoying special guest status);
- Yugoslavia and its break-away republics Slovenia and Croatia (only Slovenia holding special guest status);
- Monaco and the Holy See;
- Canada and the United States.
4 4 Georgia, mentioned under (iii), has not yet joined the CIE while, on the other hand, it is not excluded that other republics, like Ukraine, may leave it.
5 5 Apart from Croatia (see above) the following 6 applications are pending: Armenia, Azerbaidjan, Belarus, Macedonia, Moldova, Ukraine. The Committee on Relations with European Non-Member Countries has already given a favourable opinion on the applications by Belarus and Ukraine.
6 6 It is noteworthy, in this connection, that, on 6 February 1992, Iran, Pakistan and Turkey decided in Ankara that Azerbaidjan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan should be admitted to the 27 year-old Economic Co-operation Organisation. A further ex-Soviet republic, Tadzhikistan, was also offered membership.
A few days earlier, on 3 February in Istanbul, the Black Sea Economic Co-operation Pact was founded, comprising Armenia, Azerbaidjan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. Membership was also offered to Greece.
7 7 It should be noted, in this connection that such associate membership would give the same rights as special guest status (which is not a statutory institution) in the Assembly, but would also offer possibilities of participation on the intergovernmental side.
8 8 This matter is the subject of a report being prepared by Mrs Haller in the Committee on Rules of Procedure.
9 9 "A state ... may be invited by the Committee of Ministers, subject to the concurring opinion of the Assembly, to become an associate member of the Council of Europe" (see Appendix A of Appendix I).
10 10 The relevant arguments in support of this point of view are to be found in document AS/Jur (42) 29, introductory memorandum by the Rapporteur, Lord Kirkhill. They are based on two legal opinions on the subject submitted by Professor Zdzisłav Kédzia, Institute of Political Sciences and Law of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan (AS/Jur (42) 4) and Dr. Manfred Nowak, Verwaltungsakademie des Bundes, Vienna (AS/Jur (42) 3).